MA: Mideast Health Cost Containment Act of 2014 (Failed)

[Potus]

Riley, have you done any cost estimates for this?

The number you gave me for the original plan was 40B with 11 of it being covered by cutting tax expenditure. I halved the 40B and included the usage taxes and the spending cut. The spending cut saves more than 5 billion dollars.

[Potus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what I wrote when I introduced the legislation. The real, practical effect is a decline in healthcare costs.

[Potus]

1. We get to budget it at the start of next budget. This is an effective way of maintaining fiscal sanity. We'll budget the money, when we have the money.

2. The MWA will establish them and then we will appropriate money for them. If the incentives aren't good or effective, we defund them.

3. The MWA defines the health goals. Let's amend it to clear that up.

4. The goals they establish in the Health Risk Management program works exactly the same as the goals from clause 8. We can clarify that if you'd like.

5. Same goals. We'll clarify.

6. We can change it from a co-pay. The purpose of the section is to move those eligible for HRP's to enroll in them. I'd be open to compromise on the specifics of that. However, the mechanisms in that section do provide money for the bill. However, it isn't a main stream of revenue.

7. They're negotiating prices. If you feel the current language is objectionable, we can definitely modify it to the Assembly's liking.

8. Generic drugs are cheaper. The name brands are more expensive without much of a more profound effect. This is a part of the cost containment aspect. We want people to move to generics in order to cut overall medical spending.

9. This is different than a 2% cut to everything, across the board. This spending cut is equivalent to 2% of an across the board cut. Let's say that an across-the-board cut is 5 billion. This section mandates that the Governor cut 5 billion from anywhere in the budget. He could make it across the board if he wants, but I wouldn't recommend it.


I like this format. I'd be interested to know the opinions of the rest of the Assembly on the format of the legislation.

[Potus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's their responsibility to design a system so that they won't run out of money. We fund the incentive system with the cost estimate of their incentives. They shouldn't run out of money. That's why it's set up like this. If they run out of money, we'll have a conversation about where to head from there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a sample model, not necessarily what the MWA would enact. Let's say they have an equation to determine the intensity of the health goals. You put in all of the variables based on the current condition of the individual and their goals. The equation spits out the figure $450. If the goals are accomplished, then $450 is deposited in a health savings account. That's just an example, but that's what I have in mind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You seem to be more particular about the wording of the legislation than anyone else, so an amendment written by you should address any concerns you may have about the wording.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, since you object to the format, amend the format. That's why amendments exist. To fix legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Game Moderator has stopped rating legislation. Literally every piece of legislation that spends money or raises revenue, at this point, is an arbitrary guess. All we have are "rough estimates" and "arbitrary guesses." I am confident that this is enough.